## Facts

- An Austria-based website operator published an online report naming a German resident and referencing his prior criminal conviction and related proceedings.
- The German resident alleged the continued online availability of the report under his full name violated his personality rights and sought an injunction in Germany.
- A UK-based newspaper publisher posted an online article about a French actor’s private life, accessible in France.
- The actor and his father sued the UK publisher in France for interference with private life and image/personality rights.
- In both disputes, defendants challenged jurisdiction in the claimant’s home forum, arguing jurisdiction should lie where the publisher was established and/or where the website was operated.

## Issues

1. Under Brussels I (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) Article 5(3), how is “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” determined for alleged online infringements of personality rights accessible in multiple Member States?
2. Under the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) Article 3(1)–(2), does the “country of origin” rule operate as a choice-of-law rule barring courts outside the provider’s establishment state from applying their own civil-liability standards?

## Decision

- The CJEU (Grand Chamber) interpreted Article 5(3) to give claimants multiple jurisdictional options for online personality-rights claims:
  - the courts of the publisher’s Member State of establishment, with competence to award damages for all harm in the EU;
  - the courts of each Member State where the content is/was accessible, with competence limited to harm suffered in that state;
  - the courts of the Member State where the victim has the “center of interests,” with competence to award damages for all harm in the EU.
- The CJEU held Article 3(1)–(2) of the E-Commerce Directive does not create a general conflicts rule requiring exclusive application of the law of the provider’s establishment state.
- The CJEU issued a preliminary ruling; national courts were to decide the merits consistently with these interpretations.

## Legal Principles

- Article 5(3) special tort jurisdiction requires a close connecting factor supporting predictable forum selection and efficient adjudication.
- For online content allegedly infringing personality rights, the victim’s “center of interests” is a proper connecting factor because the harm to reputation/personality is typically felt most acutely there and can be assessed most effectively by that forum.
- The “center of interests” for a natural person is generally the Member State of habitual residence.
- The “mosaic” approach remains available: suit may be brought in each Member State of accessibility, but recovery is limited to local harm.
- The E-Commerce Directive’s “country of origin” rule limits certain Member State restrictions on cross-border services within the coordinated field; it does not, by itself, dictate applicable law in private civil-liability disputes or eliminate otherwise valid Brussels I jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The CJEU held that, for alleged online infringements of personality rights, a claimant may sue for EU-wide harm in the courts of the publisher’s establishment or in the courts of the victim’s center of interests, while retaining the option to sue in each state of accessibility for locally suffered harm; it also clarified that the E-Commerce Directive’s “country of origin” rule is not a general choice-of-law mandate.


eDate Advert. GmbH v. X & Martinez v. MGN Ltd., Joined Cases C-509/09 & C-161/10 (C.J.E.U. 2011)